|
Free Press my ass (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Thats why it is laughable when this regime goes around the world and tells the governments whats right or wrong and how they should treat their own people. |
and today's winner of the non sequitur award goes to... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and today's winner of the non sequitur award goes to... |
pkc ;) :D |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Americans have established freedom of speech zones quite some time ago. You can protest and voice opinions at designated areas, and so on with more and more events to come, this will evolve into worse models. In the future, opinions that go against the main line and protests might look a lot like those we saw in Beijing 2008. Small steps, small steps. And you guys think that Russian police actions against political protestors is "evil". :haha: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
pkc ;) :D |
haha! :p
but seriously, you can't connect the executive level of government with something done at the state level by a bunch of individual police officers. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nostalgic
Sissy Liberals:
WAHHHH WAHHHHHH WAHHHHHHHHHHH.
Stop wetting your diapers. |
Stop being a complete wit. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nostalgic
SHUT UP & OBEY!! |
fixed |
|
|
| Nostalgic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Stop being a complete wit. |
If it make you feel any better 99 percent of my friends are liberals. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nostalgic
If it make you feel any better 99 percent of my friends are liberals. |
What would make me feel better is you stop acting like you're 16. I really don't know when it became cool to enjoy police acting like brainless douchebags in this country...and blame it on "sissy liberals".
You might want to actually read up on who the you're talking about, Amy Goodman is one of this country's best and most revered journalists. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
people do have a right of free speech, however, that right doesn't trump the rights of other people. Those rights aren't unfettered and unchecked. People have a right to go about their lives without being interrupted by protestors. |
| quote: | Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognised as human right, political freedom and a civil liberty.
Freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom of joining an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labour rights and the right to collective bargaining, for example by joining a trade union. Freedom of assembly as guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution and the Constitution of the United States are interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly |
| quote: | The Bill of Rights (ie. first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution)
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
Godammit dude, weren't you a lawyer? :conf: |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Godammit dude, weren't you a lawyer? :conf: |
I'm a tax lawyer.
the constitution does say that, however, you should probably read this from a Lexis outline:
| quote: |
Introduction [431]
First Amendment jurisprudence has long extended a right to speak on certain government property that qualifies as a public forum. This right to speak in the public forum permits everyone to introduce their views for free. The public forum is particularly important for those who would otherwise lack adequate resources to access the marketplace of ideas. Without such free access, the right to free speech for many would be illusory.
This right of access is not absolute, however. An unlimited right of access to the public forum would jeopardize the First Amendment rights of everyone. If everyone spoke at the same time in the same public forum, the resulting chaos would prevent all speakers from communicating their respective messages. The Constitution permits the government to place limited time, place, and manner restrictions on the right to speak in a public forum to ensure that those who wish to speak can be heard. These restrictions must be content neutral because by arbitrarily dictating where, when, or under what circumstances people can speak, the government could effectively suppress speech. For example, government could advise a speaker whom it disfavored that she could speak only at 4 a.m. in a deserted area. On the other hand, it could allow a preferred speaker access to the town square at noon. Such abuses of time, place, and manner restrictions could result in the suppression of speech just as effectively as more direct methods of censorship.
§14.01 Offensive Speech in Public Places [431-441]
[1] General Principles
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the Court rejected constitutional protection for what it referred to as “fighting words.”
[2] Hate Speech
In R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), several teenagers were convicted under an ordinance that prohibited placing symbols on public or private property so as to arouse anger based on race, religion, or gender. The R.A.V. Court found the ordinance invalid on its face because it prohibited speech solely on the basis of content. Although the Minnesota Supreme Court construed the ordinance at issue to prohibit only fighting words, the ordinance only applied to fighting words that insulted or provoked violence based on race, religion, or gender.
[3] Sexually Offensive Speech
Sexually obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment. What about speech that does not meet the Court’s definition of obscenity but is arguable still offensive?
In Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976), the Court upheld a Detroit zoning ordinance that forbade adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any two other regulated uses or within 500 feet of residential areas. Regulated uses referred to 10 different kinds of establishments in addition to adult theaters.
§14.02 Speech in Traditional Public Forums: Streets, Sidewalks, Parks [441-445]
Certain public property–such as streets, sidewalks, and parks–are so historically associated with the exercise of free speech rights that denial of access to anyone is constitutionally forbidden. However, unlimited access to such public forums would likely lead to chaos and thereby decrease First Amendment protection. Consequently, the Constitution permits the state to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on access to public forums.
§14.03 The Civil Rights Movement, Mass Demonstrations, and New Rules for New Public Forums [445-446]
Cases involving mass demonstrations brought new pressures on public forum analysis, more severe than the single-speaker or small-group forms of expression. For example, in Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966), the Court protected a right to conduct a peaceful, quiet sit-in a public library.
§14.04 The Modern Approach: Limiting Speech According to the Characters of the Property [446-461]
[1] Public Property
The modern Court’s public forum analysis is confined to public or government property. Even within the category of government property, there are public forums and non-public forums. Among public forums, there are different types affording different speech rights. Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983), separated public property into various categories of public fora. Traditional public forums included streets, sidewalks, and parks. The government could not close these forums off to the public. Content-based exclusions based on the speaker’s viewpoint or based on the subject matter of the speech must be “necessary to serve a compelling state interest and narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Id. at 45. Finally, “regulations of the time, place, and manner must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Id.
The state opened up public forum by designation for expressive activity. There were two categories of public forums by designation, general and limited. General public forums by designation were those that the state had opened up for all types of expressive activity. The state could close off public forums by designation at any time. However, as long as it kept them open, the same constitutional restriction on regulations of speech that pertained to traditional public forums also pertained to public forums by designation. Limited public forums by designation were places that government had opened for speech by certain groups or for certain subjects.
[2] Private Property as a Public Forum: Shopping Centers and Company Towns
For private property open to the public to be considered a public forum, state action must be present. First Amendment guarantees applied to a company town. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), concluded that shopping centers were not public forums because no state action existed.
§14.05 Speech in Public Schools [461-463]
The extent of protection granted to speech in the public school setting varies. Greater protection has been extended to student expression that is not related to curricular or extracurricular activities. Thus, students may express their own opinions as long as they do not “materially and substantially interfere with” the operation or requirements of the school or impinge on the rights of others. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
§14.06 Religious Speech in Public Places [463-466]
The additional concerns and issues raised by the Establishment Clause make religious speech in public places more complicated than other speech. In two school cases, the Court reasoned that allowing religious speech on public property did not violate the Establishment Clause.
|
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool...onlaw/index.asp |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
I see, not much of a civil libetarian I'm guessing. You're talking about the orwellian concept of free speech zones (or free speech cages rather), a rather recent inovation in which unfortunately is legislatively enacted. As much as I find it appaling and a restriction contrary to the concept of free speech and it's intended purpose, that has nothing to do with limiting press (which is also mentioned in the same clause). You'll have get a better idea of my views on the limitations of free speech in this thread (which Occ linked to another great thread) as I don't want to go on a tangent. Take note of the thread title, I picked it for a reason because I was aware that, unfortunately and inevitably, some responses were going to go on the pro-authoritairan and pro-limitation of civil liberties tangent.
EDIT: Does't a "limited free press" sound like an oxymoron to you? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
EDIT: Does't a "limited free press" sound like an oxymoron to you? |
it does....i'm not supporting any position, i was just stating the law as it stands today. In general, the same rules that apply to free speech apply to a free press. As a lawyer, I have a tendancy to put forth the other side despite my actual position. I know your initial post was about free press, but i somehow deviated to free speech. I'm not sure if it was in response to another post or i was just tired when i wrote it. in any event, it is what it is. |
|
|
|
|
